Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have never understand the people who are pro-life and pro capital punishment. Seems like you should be pro-life across the board. It tends to be about matters of "innocence". They feel a Pro-Life stance protects the most innocent of lives--the unborn fetus. Obviously that's not the case with capital punishment (outside of those generally hard to prove cases of an innocent person sentenced to death). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have never understand the people who are pro-life and pro capital punishment. Seems like you should be pro-life across the board. you dont see a difference in terminating an unborn fetus and a mass murderer (for example) being put down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The tailgate has been fostering some sophisticated and level headed discussion these days. /digression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have never understand the people who are pro-life and pro capital punishment. Seems like you should be pro-life across the board. This is the tip of another very relevant iceberg I've mentioned several times. There is a rote answer (see first two quotes below of posts made as I away for a bit after starting this response) to that one situation as you framed it. But it doesn't cover the matters as I've previously outlined them in a couple threads during this go-around, or even really address the core issue it's applied to (satisfactorily). The deeper questions relevant to this angle I mentioned in them, that the use of phrases like "pro-life" or "protecting innocent life" (among others) prompt, netted no responses are even much indication they were read (which is fine either way) given responses like the ones below ---not intending any offense at all, either. you dont see a difference in terminating an unborn fetus and a mass murderer (for example) being put down? It tends to be about matters of "innocence". They feel a Pro-Life stance protects the most innocent of lives--the unborn fetus. Obviously that's not the case with capital punishment (outside of those generally hard to prove cases of an innocent person sentenced to death). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The tailgate has been fostering some sophisticated and level headed discussion these days. /digression Much of what I have posted previously in here is due to how the title is worded. In that spirit I'll add what may seem, to at least some, like quite a digression. So don't read this is you prefer stuff focused on the" basics" of the dialogue, even in this wide-ranging version of the topic. I repeat myself on these matters (for an obvious reason), but the different drivers behind many stances taken on the matter often can have lot to do with deeper and well-set aspects of personal psychology and personality development (emotional/relational/identity/ego etc). And, as often the case, the particular political/philosophical/social/religious aspects of topic are partly to mainly just another suit of clothes that the body chooses to dress in out of the wardrobe. It‘s the body that‘s the real story, not the specific article of clothing in and of itself. This, even when justly applicable, doesn’t automatically negate or endorse any argument’s merits or importance. It’s simply noting some of the likely and powerful sources that energize these expressions we read. It’s acceptance can encourage looking for influences that often inhibit less emotionally-based reasoning in what is a very emotionally charged matter. Nor does this exercise advocate the eliminating of emotionality. It’s recognizing how challenging it can be trying to frame such arguments with an emphasis on rationality, justice, and logic and have it hold up well on those grounds when feelings and attitudes (aspects of the psychology) are so stimulated. It suggests one does one's best if continuing to really listen to others and subject one's current thoughts and feelings to ongoing and serious scrutiny, befitting such a serious matter. It's the best way to make sure the brain is being best utilized and not too governed by long-held rote synaptic habits (especially the more emotionally-driven matters), which have a very real chemical/biological power in the cognitive process. Those electrical synaptic flows seem like to follow the path of least resistance somewhat like water---the rut already dug is where things go easier than digging a new one. This can be applied to other vital topics, obviously....hopefully ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Not a ton of time at the moment, but I will say a couple of words re: the death penalty and why some/many anti-abortion folks are pro-death penalty. Our legal system recognizes that when one infringes on the rights of another, they forfeit rights of their own. When you steal another man's property, you are infringing on his right of ownership. Your rights are then forfeited regarding freedom for a period of time. The same principle applies with the death penalty debate. Those who are pro-death penalty believe that in taking away another's right to life in a premeditated fashion, the guilty party has forfeited their own. It's certainly debatable, but it is not a logically inconsistent position unless our entire legal system is logically inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have never understand the people who are pro-life and pro capital punishment. Seems like you should be pro-life across the board. I can understand that, but I have always had difficulty with understanding people who are pro-life, but anti-welfare, children's health programs, and pre-natal care programs. It's like they think life is precious and holy only if it is abstract, but once it's real or bares a cost... they wash their hands. If you care before the baby is born how can you walk away so easily the moment it starts to breathe on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I can understand that, but I have always had difficulty with understanding people who are pro-life, but anti-welfare, children's health programs, and pre-natal care programs.It's like they think life is precious and holy only if it is abstract, but once it's real or bares a cost... they wash their hands. If you care before the baby is born how can you walk away so easily the moment it starts to breathe on its own. I think it's how the funding is achieved that most are against, not the programs themselves. Actually there are a sizeable percentage of people who consider themselves Pro-Life who either donate money to charities that provide many of these same services for lower socioeconomic communities, or work at the charities themselves. The whole philosophical debate about government funding and how it effects/achieves the stated goals gets brought into the discussion--which is fine, but it's rarely brought up in a fashion that actually fosters productive discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think it's how the funding is achieved that most are against, not the programs themselves. Actually there are a sizeable percentage of people who consider themselves Pro-Life who either donate money to charities that provide many of these same services for lower socioeconomic communities, or work at the charities themselves. The whole philosophical debate about government funding and how it effects/achieves the stated goals gets brought into the discussion--which is fine, but it's rarely brought up in a fashion that actually fosters productive discussion. To me, that's a potato/pahtatah argument. If you care about the life of the innocent so much you ought to be willing to help. The fact that people are so passionately determined to have an opinion and force their will on others... unless it costs themselves personally, I find pretty terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Not a ton of time at the moment, but I will say a couple of words re: the death penalty and why some/many anti-abortion folks are pro-death penalty.Our legal system recognizes that when one infringes on the rights of another, they forfeit rights of their own. When you steal another man's property, you are infringing on his right of ownership. Your rights are then forfeited regarding freedom for a period of time. The same principle applies with the death penalty debate. Those who are pro-death penalty believe that in taking away another's right to life in a premeditated fashion, the guilty party has forfeited their own. It's certainly debatable, but it is not a logically inconsistent position unless our entire legal system is logically inconsistent. What doesn't get discussed nearly as much--or placed in the same category of "hypocritical"--is the generic stance of "How can you be ok with abortions but against capital punishment?"...and, in my eyes anyway, that argument is just as flawed as the "Pro-Life/Pro Capital Punishment" that gets bandied about. They're both lazy and logically-flawed ways of trying to paint the other side as hypocritical and naive. ---------- Post added February-18th-2012 at 03:04 PM ---------- To me, that's a potato/pahtatah argument. If you care about the life of the innocent so much you ought to be willing to help. The fact that people are so passionately determined to have an opinion and force their will on others... unless it costs themselves personally, I find pretty terrible. But you are assuming the only way it can "cost" anyone personally is through government spending. Like I said, the Pro-Lifer who contributes both financially and physically to charities that provide these services is indeed doing so at a personal cost. And let's face it, there are Pro-Choicers who don't think the government should spend money on abortions or sex-education, etc, etc...maybe not a ton of people like that but they DO exist lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 What doesn't get discussed nearly as much--or placed in the same category of "hypocritical"--is the generic stance of "How can you be ok with abortions but against capital punishment?"...and, in my eyes anyway, that argument is just as flawed as the "Pro-Life/Pro Capital Punishment" that gets bandied about. They're both lazy and logically-flawed ways of trying to paint the other side as hypocritical and naive. I think that's fair and there is a dissonance there. I am against capitol punishment in almost all cases, but am willing for people to make individual choices on abortion... similarly, I remember during my Grandmother's worst days, I wasn't sure if I could ever pull the plug, but I would have been okay if she chose to die. On the capitol punishment side, I guess we have to answer the question do we have that right to make such a final decision that the life is unredeemable and that a person can never contribute or be a part of society. In some ways, that's a harder question for someone with a history, then a set of cells without one, but I agree that there is lots of ethical murk. ---------- Post added February-18th-2012 at 06:12 PM ---------- What doesn't get discussed nearly as much--or placed in the same category of "hypocritical"--is the generic stance of "How can you be ok with abortions but against capital punishment?"...and, in my eyes anyway, that argument is just as flawed as the "Pro-Life/Pro Capital Punishment" that gets bandied about. They're both lazy and logically-flawed ways of trying to paint the other side as hypocritical and naive.---------- Post added February-18th-2012 at 03:04 PM ---------- But you are assuming the only way it can "cost" anyone personally is through government spending. Like I said, the Pro-Lifer who contributes both financially and physically to charities that provide these services is indeed doing so at a personal cost. And let's face it, there are Pro-Choicers who don't think the government should spend money on abortions or sex-education, etc, etc...maybe not a ton of people like that but they DO exist lol... Not assuming that, but acknowledging the many who are like that and do speak one way with their mouths and another with their wallets. Being honest, how many pro-lifers do you know that volunteer at orphanages, engage in fostercare, cook lunches at school, participate in Big Brother programs or make large donations continually to children's causes... and also are opposed to gov't programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 people who are pro-life, but anti-welfare, children's health programs, and pre-natal care programs.. How many are ? (other than hardline libertarians) we certainly spend quite a bit as a nation, and most pro-lifers I know donate money on top of that Maybe if we spent less protecting the guilty and a tiny percentage of falsely convicted we would have more funds for other needs I have difficulty in understanding those supporting spending a fortune protecting the right to life of murderers while endorsing choice in abortion. takes all kinds Bur So if I support executing your siblings before they can have a history yet volunteer and support your needs I'm golden? I fail to see removing a future justified by their lack of a past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Let's not pretend the number is small, twa. Most people operate out of self interest and are much more noble if they don't have to pay. Look at how unpopular the effort to renew the emergency children's health insurance was. To be honest, self-interest is probably the big reason why it's easier for some to be pro choice too as well as pro capitol punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I can understand that, but I have always had difficulty with understanding people who are pro-life, but anti-welfare, children's health programs, and pre-natal care programs.It's like they think life is precious and holy only if it is abstract, but once it's real or bares a cost... they wash their hands. If you care before the baby is born how can you walk away so easily the moment it starts to breathe on its own. That's kind of how I got to my "Republicans want to make sex illegal" "theory". (I put theory in quotes because it really isn't a theory, but I can't think of a better word.) I can easily understand being opposed to some abortions. I can't understand being opposed to sex education and condoms for minors. To me, the cheapest and most effective way to reduce abortions, is to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think that's fair and there is a dissonance there. I am against capitol punishment in almost all cases, but am willing for people to make individual choices on abortion... similarly, I remember during my Grandmother's worst days, I wasn't sure if I could ever pull the plug, but I would have been okay if she chose to die. On the capitol punishment side, I guess we have to answer the question do we have that right to make such a final decision that the life is unredeemable and that a person can never contribute or be a part of society. In some ways, that's a harder question for someone with a history, then a set of cells without one, but I agree that there is lots of ethical murk. Exactly :yes:...to me, I'm never bothered if someone who says they're pro-choice is also against capital punishment, and if someone who says they're pro-life says they're for capital punishment. The very real "ethical murk" you mentioned is usually what causes most of us to have the superficial contradictions in our stances...and those stances can--and do--often change. As I said earlier, I see abortion as a necessary evil (for lack of a better way to put it)...and I guess I see the death penalty the same way. I personally would love it if no abortions were ever needed to be performed and no death sentence was ever handed down under any circumstances. Then again, there are a ****load of things on that "List of things I would love to be true" lol... Not assuming that, but acknowledging the many who are like that and do speak one way with their mouths and another with their wallets. Being honest, how many pro-lifers do you know that volunteer at orphanages, engage in fostercare, cook lunches at school, participate in Big Brother programs or make large donations continually to children's causes... and also are opposed to gov't programs. Being honest? I knew a crapload who did :yes:... Back when I was married my ex was Pro-Life and preferred organized religion while I preferred a more individualized belief system. Anyway, I attended church a little bit here and there for awhile mostly to support her, and the church was actually very cool, very intelligent sermons, easy going, helpful...all the good stuff you'd expect a church to be. My wife started volunteering at one of their church-run and donation-funded charities that was specifically set up to help get expected mothers under the poverty line pre-natal care, and new mothers under the poverty line supplies and a network of doctors, baby food, baby clothes, baby-sitting services and a bunch of stuff like that there. I volunteered with my ex-wife for about 6 months, mostly because at the time our daughter was born we had just lost our business contracts with the gubmint and were damn near the poverty lines ourselves ...this charity helped us, and I can tell you through experience that I was probably the only person there who would be considered Pro-Choice lol... I've also known neighbors who fit that description--against abortion but donated to charities to help young mothers. It's not THAT unusual...once you're exposed to it you notice it. Kinda like buying a blue BMW...next thing you know you're seeing blue BMWs all over the damn place lol... But, yeah, I agree with you that people should put actions behind their words and should see the entirety of what they desire politically...way too easy to just rant and vent without doing anything else. Or worse,without having any alternate solution to what you're ranting and venting about (see: strategy, Republicans against Obama). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Let's not pretend the number is small, twa. Most people operate out of self interest and are much more noble if they don't have to pay. Look at how unpopular the effort to renew the emergency children's health insurance was. To be honest, self-interest is probably the big reason why it's easier for some to be pro choice too as well as pro capitol punishment. SCHIP is a excellent example....of liberal excess that gives benefits to those that should be able to afford them on their own(those WELL above the poverty line) opposition to that excess is then used to falsely label ....it's the same tired trick being used in the contraception issue currently The govt has the ability to take needed funds from those unwilling,but wastefulness and excess in using them only increases the opposition....in the same manner excesses such as using abortion as a birth control method increases the opposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repo_4 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 That's kind of how I got to my "Republicans want to make sex illegal" "theory". (I put theory in quotes because it really isn't a theory, but I can't think of a better word.) I can't understand being opposed to sex education and condoms for minors. To me, the cheapest and most effective way to reduce abortions, is to reduce unplanned pregnancies. I am a Republican and in NO way want to make sex illegal. :thumbsup: Larry, I used to be the guy that was against sex education and condoms for minors. Only because I think that would be MY job as a parent to have that talk. I have to say that I am rethinking this. I live in a poorer area and see A LOT of underaged unwed mothers. That isnt going to change so the only solution I can come up with is to have my talk in addition to the one from school. I can make sure my kids (when I have them) get that talk, but not other kids. So, not all of us Republicans are opposed to changing our views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'll join you in not wanting sex to be illegal. On the sex ed and condom issue...while I see the need it does undercut my position as a parent if I am teaching both abstinence and open communication for another to be enabling the opposite behavior.... If my kids are having sex I feel I need to know to assure they are protecting themselves and others They are MINE :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Much of what I have posted previously in here is due to how the title is worded. In that spirit I'll add what may seem, to at least some, like quite a digression. So don't read this is you prefer stuff focused on the" basics" of the dialogue, even in this wide-ranging version of the topic. I repeat myself on these matters (for an obvious reason), but the different drivers behind many stances taken on the matter often can have lot to do with deeper and well-set aspects of personal psychology and personality development (emotional/relational/identity/ego etc). And, as often the case, the particular political/philosophical/social/religious aspects of topic are partly to mainly just another suit of clothes that the body chooses to dress in out of the wardrobe. It‘s the body that‘s the real story, not the specific article of clothing in and of itself. This, even when justly applicable, doesn’t automatically negate or endorse any argument’s merits or importance. It’s simply noting some of the likely and powerful sources that energize these expressions we read. It’s acceptance can encourage looking for influences that often inhibit less emotionally-based reasoning in what is a very emotionally charged matter. Nor does this exercise advocate the eliminating of emotionality. It’s recognizing how challenging it can be trying to frame such arguments with an emphasis on rationality, justice, and logic and have it hold up well on those grounds when feelings and attitudes (aspects of the psychology) are so stimulated. It suggests one does one's best if continuing to really listen to others and subject one's current thoughts and feelings to ongoing and serious scrutiny, befitting such a serious matter. It's the best way to make sure the brain is being best utilized and not too governed by long-held rote synaptic habits (especially the more emotionally-driven matters), which have a very real chemical/biological power in the cognitive process. Those electrical synaptic flows seem like to follow the path of least resistance somewhat like water---the rut already dug is where things go easier than digging a new one. This can be applied to other vital topics, obviously....hopefully ) I'll be honest Jumbo about 1/4 or more of the content of your posts go over my head, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. The causal origins of why we believe the things we do are really complicated, but I think you are right to consider our beliefs as a layer/dressing that's fits over our core being. As an example the steadfast belief in something that is facially absurd could be a result of having a personality predisposed to loyalty. I know that I often see the term "in-group" loyalty thrown around as one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. But instead of loyalty to the group itself I mean loyalty to philosophical dressings of the group, like a person who views an "attack" on a commonly shared belief of their in-group as an attack on the in-group itself. that's the most simple example, but another is how maturity effects beliefs. As we get older we (or atleast i have) become calmer and my beliefs are as a whole much less radical. Though part of it is also learning that there is a reason why older folks do things a certain way and even those habits that we younger folks considered rediculous at younger ages start making more sense. That's not to say that there aren't outdated institutions but the realization that our novel ideas aren't so novel or effective can foster a more humble and cautious predisposition. I think this sort of account of personal belief formation also explains why there are at least a few brilliant believers and supporters for even the most "out there" beliefs. People, and especially individuals are very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'll be honest Jumbo about 1/4 or more of the content of your posts go over my head, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. The causal origins of why we believe the things we do are really complicated, but I think you are right to consider our beliefs as a layer/dressing that's fits over our core being. As an example the steadfast belief in something that is facially absurd could be a result of having a personality predisposed to loyalty. I know that I often see the term "in-group" loyalty thrown around as one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. But instead of loyalty to the group itself I mean loyalty to philosophical dressings of the group, like a person who views an "attack" on a commonly shared belief of their in-group as an attack on the in-group itself. that's the most simple example, but another is how maturity effects beliefs. As we get older we (or atleast i have) become calmer and my beliefs are as a whole much less radical. Though part of it is also learning that there is a reason why older folks do things a certain way and even those habits that we younger folks considered rediculous at younger ages start making more sense. That's not to say that there aren't outdated institutions but the realization that our novel ideas aren't so novel or effective can foster a more humble and cautious predisposition. I think this sort of account of personal belief formation also explains why there are at least a few brilliant believers and supporters for even the most "out there" beliefs. People, and especially individuals are very interesting. Yes,that's been why I made it my second professional career. It, and much scientific methodology ("hard" & "soft"), has always been ancillary areas of study even in my first career, and all are among themes of serious personal interest since I was a pre-teen. I was alluding to some complicated contextual frameworks re: human nature/cognition, and you accuarely tapped into some of that. Per some of my posts: I often come to ES in between work-related matters, and often my head is in that arena and so is my manner of communicating. Whether dealing with other clinicians, grad students, or reviewing/writing/researching/analyzing, I sometimes don't remember to change to as simple a form of conveying a thought as might work. But I also often don't find a really satisfying alternative anyway with some matters if you really want to say what you have to say accurately and thoroughly. Other times, this is obviously not the case with a great number of my posts in any ES forum. And I rarely take umbrage at the idea that my "blah blah" long posts are often ignored by many or that a sea of eyes roll upon their appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 My apologies. I hit the wrong voting option while reading and meant to hit, Agnostic but pro-choice. I don't believe they can fix that but if they could it would be appreciated. Please and Thank You. Now I have to go back and read past post 6. Ugh. Anyway. I am not in the corner of saying abortion is a right, I am not in the corner of saying it is wrong. But I do believe in women's rights. It scares me to think that some people believe that a woman that was taken advantage of should be forced to bear a child and I don't even want to fathom some of the news stories we would read if it was reversed. Another point is...I don't wan't my tax dollars paying for a child that is not wanted besides the financial windfall for some people that they simple exploit (I can explain that better if needed, because it sounds bad). I do not think it should be used as agter the fact birth control either. I am all over the place on this topic, but ultimately...Let the women decide. ---------- Post added February-20th-2012 at 03:29 AM ---------- Larry made a post that was in response to someone...It was saying something about 99+% protection with protection. If my lady became pregnant with the protection she uses...I think both of us would simply sit back and say it was meant to be. We don't want children, but we both love them (lots of family that we spoil rotten). We don't have pets for the same reason really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 i dont see how any rational person could consider this topic and not be conflicted. while i consider myself a fairly spiritual person ... i wouldnt consider myself deeply "religious" in the sense that most people accept the term to mean. that being said.... i am pro choice. for my own life i believe in pro life. i would never be comfortable with a woman having an abortion of my baby. unfortunately as a man we dont get a choice in the matter. to me that complicates things even further. when i was younger i was inclined to believe in "the quickening".... the moment the newborn takes its first breath and the soul enters the body. however.... when my ex and i had our daughter... i found out that was absolutely not the case. for months i would come home and lay my head in the lap of my wife and talk to my baby. when she finally joined us on this earth... she was screaming and crying in the delivery room.... i walked up to her and in my tone that i used when speaking to mommas belly... i spoke soothingly to my new baby girl. she immediately stopped crying and looked me in the eye. to me, it was obvious. she recognized my voice and was soothed by its familiarity in the sharp stainless steel fluorescent delivery room. at that moment i knew.... i knew that baby was alive and aware long before she was obviously born. and still... i cant begin to imagine being a woman and being forced to have a baby she doesnt want. granted.... most consenting adults have that choice. the choice to be PROactive long before they need to worry about being PRO life or PRO choice. but not all cases involve a woman having a choice to be anything but pregnant with a baby she doesnt want. for this reason i have to side on the pro choice side and leave it between the woman and her creator... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I frequently see the death penalty versus abortion used as an argument for consistency of beliefs, but as many have said the death penalty is for those who have done society great harm. The debate I would rather see is the pro-life versus either ag subsidies or pro-life versus patent enforcement for life saving drugs and procedures. Roughly 1 in 7 people in the world is underfed. 35 million people have HIV or AIDS. http://www.thp.org/learn_more/issues/know_your_world_facts_about_hunger_and_poverty?gclid=CK7DtNyOr64CFYXe4AodOFJrRg Yet, we still spend time and money on abortion and contraception. Even if I can get past hose numbers, I still have the issue with providing foster parents for the children already coming into the world. I am pro-choice while recognizing there being no "good" choice, merely less bad. I think my biggest problem with the abortion debate stems from my belief in the greatest good for the greatest numbers approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 the problem of the underfed is in no way mitigated by abortion,killing one does not improve the lot of another. unless ya start killing some corrupt rulers it will never change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 TWA, but the resources used to either fight abortion and shelter the newborns are some of the same used to fight starvation. If one is truely for life on the macro scale, these questions aren't separate. In all of the cases, it comes back to how much are you willing to do in the name of "life." In a world of finite resources, this sadly seems a zero sum game. Note, resources include more than dollars. We are in effect chosing to empower the unborn at the cost of some of those already here. Society as a whole pays, one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Look at those malnourished and tell me simply sending food or money is gonna correct it. Ya need to get micro on leadership to get macro on helping people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.